Platform Item 34: Checks and Balances on the Courts
Congress must exercise its authority over the Judicial Branch and function as the check and balance against the court it is Constitutionally empowered to exercise.
- Limit the jurisdiction of the Court to matters within the international boundaries of the United States
- Prohibit the involvement of the court in election matters with the exception of trying cases where a person(s) is accused of violating a specific statute(s)
- Prohibit the Court from involving itself in any matter that is defined as an exclusive power of the Legislative or the Executive Branch
- Prohibit the Court from adjudicating solutions that require the Congress to appropriate monies from the US Treasury, build Administrative Programs or otherwise involve it in the Budget Process.
Argument
The Congress has for at least fifty years abdicated its power over the Court system and has often used that system to achieve legislation they were unable to achieve through the Legislative Process. The Court has willingly usurped power from the Congress and from the Executive Branch. This is understandable given that there is no other branch of the government pushing back and the Congress refuses leadership. The Court simply acts to fill a vacuum. Many Congressmen themselves seem to believe that the only role in the Congress regarding the Judicial Branch is the responsibility of the Senate to confirm Presidential Appointments. They see the Court as a "last stop" to determining the outcome of any issue. They would be wrong.
- The Constitution provides the power to the Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. (Article I, Section 8)
- The Constitution provides the power to the Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Court. (Article III, Section 2)
- The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach Justices (Article I, Section 2)
- The Senate has the power to try all cases of impeachment. (Article I, Section 3)
- The Senate has the power to confirm Presidential Appointments to the Court (Article II, Section 2)
- The Congress has the power to initiate Constitutional Amendments (Article V)
- The Congress has the power to alter the size of the Supreme Court (Article III, Section 1 creates a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice but does not fix the size of the Court. Thus the size of the Court is established by statute and this involves both the Congress and the President)
Given all these powers is it not surprising that we live today under an oligarchy? Congress and the President have abdicated to nine men and women in black robes the final authority on the governance of this nation. Of what value then are the President or the Congress? Why would we not simply appeal our issues directly to the oligarchy of nine men and women and save ourselves the trouble of legislating and setting all administrative policy?
Power now vested in the Courts must be returned to the people as defined in our Constitution when those powers belong to our elected representatives. This extends beyond federal law to state courts as well. The citizens of every state are guaranteed a Republican Form of government (Article IV, Section 4).
We must not allow the Court to interfere with the President's role in determining foreign policy or the methods the nation employs in waging war, areas within which the Court logically may have no expertise and where their goal may be contrary to the goal of national security.
We must not allow the Court to usurp the power of the fifty state legislatures or the Congress to create rules that certify elections. Witness the havoc created by the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 as they succeeded to alter Florida election laws subsequent to an election.
We must not allow the Court at any level to involve itself in matters of redistricting or any other matters that are specifically provided as within the Constitutional duties of the State Legislatures or the Congress, the Governors or the President. This politicizes the court and enables one House to overrule the other and not negotiate solutions through representatives of the people.
We must not allow the Court to determine by ruling that there be expenditures made from the US or State Treasuries. They have no such key. Despite this we have allowed courts to require states to spend their treasuries on programs for education, mental health, prisons and in many other areas and thus impose their position as a burden unto the taxpayers.
The Courts are not directly accountable to the Citizens. As such they must not be placed in a position to deny liberties that extend beyond those in our Constitution(s) and/or that are specifically enumerated within specific legislation.
Categories: Courts, Platform, Congress
Tags: Checks and Balances Congress Constitution President Court Judicial Branch
Protection for U.S. Service Personnel?
"Non-consensual experimentation is illegal" [5] on convicted rapists and murderers but NOT on U.S. SERVICE PERSONNEL [2 & 7]!
U.S. convicted rapists and murderers are protected from human experiments by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment 8. This is demonstrated by the 1992 U.S. Senate signed United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) "...Article 7 - Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment."[5] Under the Article 7's "Basic Rights of Prisoners." is, "Written policy and practice prohibit the use of inmates for medical...experiments." and "Non-consensual experimentation is illegal"! Nineteen (19) times cited is the U.S. Constitution plus its 8th Amendment’s no cruel and unusual punishment.[5] On May 23, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that crowded prisons are in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s, Bill of Rights, Eighth Amendment no cruel and unusual punishments, i.e., Brown v. Plata (09-1233).
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress via the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 14! Still not stopped are the U.S. Senate's reported Department of Defense (DOD) "military research" "experiments that were designed to harm" conducted on "hundreds of thousands"![3] The withheld "to harm" evidence continues with the U.S. Congress's 2006 and 2005 rejection of the "Veterans Right to Know Act" [1], i.e., the needed for treatment but experiments [3] identifying evidence. In the 2002 U.S. Senate Feres Doctrine Hearing [2] the rejection of the underlying experimentation issue is verified by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ignoring testimony. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court Stanley DOD non-consensual, experiment was decided.[7] Stanley's injuring "to harm" drug experiment was classified as a 1950 U. S. Supreme Court Feres Doctrine "incident to service"![8] Stanley is one of the U.S. Senate's, "hundreds of thousands" of human "experiments that were designed to harm" documented by the Senate [3] and Government Accountability Office (GAO).[4] Millions of service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire, followed by Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act that censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving and future records. All consistent with: A. The still U.S. Congress and DOJ overlooked CIA, Inspector General's 1957 "it was necessary to conceal these activities from the american public in general, because public knowledge of the unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles...."; Stanley, PDF version, Section IV, Page 16 of 21, Footnote 4.[7] and B. The to-date continuation of the 1994 U.S. Senate Report's ignored, "The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human expe
Reply to this